Why Repugs Drive Hag to Drink
Yesterday, the Hag was driven to drink because the Repugs, “In just a few weeks they have cemented in the media and the public consciousness the astoundingly ironic notion that racism is now something only those self-evidently inferior brown people still cling to and must publicly renounce; we superior whites having left that old thing behind long ago.”
Well Hag right after reading your thoughts, I heard the answer to your frustration on my Chicago public radio station. George Lakoff was interviewed on the local World View Show to discuss his latest book, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain.
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Understand-21st-Century-18th-Century/dp/0670019275
I highly recommend listening to this interview: World View: Linguist George Lakoff examines how conservatives have used words and phrases to shape the political debate. He tells Jerome how Obama has shifted the political war of words.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_popup.aspx?audioID=35415
Here, in the first words of the Introduction to his latest book, is the challenge that Lakoff presents all progressives who are frustrated by the Repugs ability to spread their mantra and framing messages so well and rapidly:
Radical conservatives have been fighting a cultural war. The main battlefield is the brain. At stake is what America is to be. Their goal is to radically change America to fit the conservative moral worldview. The threat is to democracy and all that goes with it.
Not just here, but wherever American influence extends.
American values are fundamentally progressive., centered on equality, human rights, social responsibility, and the inclusion of all. Yet progressives have without knowing why, given conservatives an enormous advantage in the cultural war. The radical conservatives seek and have already began to introduce: an authoritarian hierarchy based on vast concentrations and control of wealth; order based on fear, intimidation, and obedience; a broken government; no balance of power; priorities shifted from the public sector to the corporate and military sectors; responsibility shifted from society to the individual; control of elections through control of who votes and how votes are counted; control of ideas through the media; and patriarcal family values projected upon, religion, politics and the market.
The future of democracy is at stake, now.
Social change is material ( who controls what wealth), institutional (who runs what powerful institutions), and political (who wins elections). But the main battlefield of the cultural war is the brain, especially how the brain functions below the level of consciousness.
Progressives have accepted an old view of reason dating back to the Enlightenment, namely, that reason is conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and serves self-interest. As the cognitive and brain sciences have been showing, this is a false view of reason. Oddly enough, this matters. It may sound like an academic issue, but this assumption about the nature of reason has stood in the way of an effective progressive defense and advancement of democracy. Progressives have ceded the political mind to radical conservatives.
I was particularly struck by Lakoff’s explanation in the radio interview of how the Dems inadequate ability to explain what they want in health care reform is dooming real reform. He says that what really matters and should be framed in the public’s minds, especially the independents, is not the public option and government takeover, but how reform will allow you and your doctor to make medical decisions instead of greedy, private health industry thieves who strive to provide as little help as possible while amassing incredible wealth.
The Repugs cleverly charge that the public option will take away all options when just the opposite is true. The choice of words by the Dems was ready made for Repug foolery and deception. Presently some young, 30K insurance manager is making the medical decisions based on his organization’s design to rake in money and dump any expensive client through a system that drives doctors to also seek money and undermine optimum medical decisions. The public option will allow the doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interests of the patient, family and friends without excessive, repetitive tests or turn away those who are left to die or bankrupt themselves to gain treatment. However, if the Dems don’t do a better job of choosing words to frame their message, this vital reform effort will be chiseled into an inferior bill.
So what words should be substituted for Public Option? I don’t think Lakoff made a specific recommendation in the radio interview and I haven’t come up with a winner yet. Here are some I considered: Medicine First, Experts (you and your doc) Decide Care, Your Care, Health Not Wealth, My Affordable Health Option, Health the Decider, Health Not Greed, Health Without Greed, Health First Money Last, …
What are your suggestions?
If you want to learn more from George Lakoff himself watch these videos:
Authors@Google: George Lakoff (6-13-08, 1:03:19 YouTube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDHFomGW3A
Linguist George Lakoff on Rationality and Politics, discussion with the Young Turks (6-20-08, 21:49 YouTube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww&feature=related
Bringing Progressive Politics Back To The People (2-7-08, 55:20 YouTube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38W3ef3QBnc&feature=channel
George Lakoff: Moral Politics (1-31-08, 58:57 YouTube video)
I just finished watching the Young Turks interview, and Lakoff is even more impressive in person than in his writings, which I’ve long admired. It might take me a bit to think of some snappy slogans, but he’s clearly right; that is what we need: a “system” of ideas based on their moral precepts. I think that is the problem Obama has now; by failing to weave his campaign rhetoric into a narrative that binds the ideals together as one, he keeps dropping them one by one as though they were just disconnected proposals.
They’re not. Democrats believe that torture is wrong and that everyone should have health care for the same reason; we value all human beings. We believe that the rich should shoulder a larger share of the tax burden for the same reason we favor equal justice under the law; we have a strong sense of fairness, and recognize the power imbalances created by concentrated wealth and unaccountable power makes everyone else suffer.
I’ll keep thinking of how to condense some of that, and try to come up with some more.
If I took your words and said Repugs think just the opposite, would that be fair?
Repugs believe that torture is right and that everyone shouldn’t have health care for the same reason; we value certain human beings. We believe that the rich shouldn’t shoulder an unfair share of the tax burden for the same reason we favor unequal justice under the law; we have a strong sense of unfairness, and don’t recognize the power imbalances created by concentrated wealth and unaccountable power that makes everyone else suffer.
I don’t believe that most Repugs are so heartless that they would believe in the above statement although their actions say they do. So what is it that blinds them to the consequences of the decisions and policies they make? Insecure feelings compensated by narcissism?
I don’t think it’s any accident that when Repubs talk about “life” they never fail to qualify it with “innocent.” And when Repubs talk about shoveling wealth upward, they feign horror at “punishing the successful.” Class warfare is only class warfare when the other class does it. Racism? Only when a minority is popping off in an uppity way. I could go on.
Yes, it’s basically opposite, selling shit and calling it Shinola. Democrats would have an advantage, if they knew how to use it.
The Italian camper who is still homeless due to the earthquake understood framing well, see bold face in this Time story.
As it was a few weeks ago when the Italian leader visited the White House, the body language was that of two best buds, with Berlusconi putting his arm around Obama’s back to pose for pictures. At one point Berlusconi surprised his American counterpart by tugging on his elbow to position for photographers. Berlusconi clearly basked in attention meant for Obama, with hundreds of Italians lining the road, waving, cheering and holding up signs. “Yes We Camp,” read one message: a play on the Obama campaign slogan and a reference to the thousands of earthquake victims still forced to live in tent cities.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1909148_1909157_1909647,00.html
Dirigo will love that story; I hope he checks in. Berlusconi, in addition to his many other charms, is also a shrimp, looks like. I bet he’s short all over; two trips to Italy gave me some rather disheartening statistics on which to base this assumption.
I’ve started two paragraphs and deleted them both.
Maybe after I get home, I’ll think of something to say that I don’t want to delete first.
I just had one wild thought… it so often is just about the visuals.
Can you imagine people protesting on street corners, holding signs, just as they did when protesting the invasion of Iraq, but this time for health care?
Well, imagine them wearing those silly little patient robes over their clothes while standing there with their signs. Maybe some of those paper slippers, too.
And if a few healthcare professionals want to wear some scrubs and booties… so be it.
…and big masks of the Republicans and Blue Dogs who are opposing the public option. Just for starters…
Excellent point Karen about the power of visuals. When we frame the meaning of a word, we see a visual and one visual can speak a thousand words. In the radio interview, Lakoff had some interesting things to say about the word torture and its power. The Dick fully understands framing and must have selected advanced interrogation technique for more than legal reasons.
Why is it that our best linguists, like Lakoff and Chomsky, seem to have such a strong understanding of our American identity? The study of linguistics and logic are closely related. Somehow the scientific study of language must provide these scholars with a window into the very foundation of American thinking.
I had not seen Lakoff speak before. I just finished viewing the first YouTube link you provided. I plan to watch the others this weekend.
These are very interesting interviews. Thanks.
A good question. Maybe because they have learned to find the essence in meaning of language people develop so they see how words frame the discussion and how powerful they can be.
An even more interesting question is why the Dems can’t see the power and the Repugs do and have developed a sophisticated system to gain a serious advantage to their strict father view of the world.
I would venture that Republicans know that their policies hurt people, but their friends in the tobacco industry faced kind of the same quandary, and they did all right. Salesmanship can sell the good as easily as the bad. I think Dems, particularly the better ones, cling to the idea that people will see, without any spin. The triumph of hope over experience.
Always look for spin, even when it is very hard to see. You’re right, we Dems frame the good in everyone as a basis and the Repugs frame that everyone is bad until they prove they belong to my clan, and even then they better keep proving their loyalty or they will be banned.
Just like the lefty radio talkers take all callers, and the righties screen them or cut them off. Happens all the time to Ed Schultz, who follows Laura Ingraham in Washington. Thom Hartmann moves dissidents to the front of the line every time. Could you imagine a righty doing that?
I took some linguistics classes and loved them. I oouldn’t major in Linguistics, though, because I could only take classes in the evening…
I’m pretty sure that their advantage is in being descriptivists, rather than prescriptivists. Iow, they are not as intellectually handicapped as your typical Republican is these days, because they recognize Reality and can talk and write about it.
In fact, it might be very entertaining to have a linguist write a grammar for drinking behavior, rather than just for a specific language or dialect.
If the Democratic Party really understood the intellectual power of Linguists (who almost cannot help be(com)ing liberal, too)… they would be the new political consultants and gurus, and we’d all be in much better shape. However, the CentristDemLeadership are still in the thrall to the opposing forces of our so-called conservatism and liberalism as “prescribed” by the likes of Newt Gingrich. (He with his list of Democratic epithets.)
You mean neutral terms like “sick,” “failed,” etc”? Give ‘em the old Razzle Dazzle.
Couldn’t agree more. Dems conduct the fight on the Repug designed playing field giving the home team a big advantage. Obama and the Dem congress do framing, but it is decided on more of an individual rather than a cohesive team basis. The Repugs listen fervently to their think tanks and expert framers, the Dems either disagree or ignore their experts.
The other huge advantage the Repugs have is their willingness to say anything regardless of whether there is any truth or logic behind it. Believing in “the ends justify the means” makes framing much easier, more flexible and clearly faster to distribute to the mantra speakers who shout it out without any questioning or delay.
Look what I just found speaking of Obama’s framing skills:
Obama’s Newspeak
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2009/07/10/recycling_rubbish_at_the_white_house/
Yes, images impart intelligence. Dialogue directs the decisions, and the doing.
So then that explains why the massmind media gatekeepers keep the gate bricked shut stonewall tight. Even when you have a good idea, or a Chomsky or a Lakoff on a roll, and you have reasoning that goes right into the heart and mind of the matter, in the inimitable word of Cheney: “So?”
And/or as they say in the First Rule of TV News: If there’s no pictures, it didn’t happen.
There is, of course, a time-tested technique to get your (the) ‘message’ to the massmind. Commandeer the media property.
Mob: Move IN!
Short of that, you got nothin’.
And that’s why the CIA Invasion Handbook’s First Rule to Overthrow a Country is: Invade the broadcast stations. Transmit takeover.
Exactly like they took over America, land of the no-longer free.
(Surely repatriation is readily non-violent, too. Line-item simple, a single veto stroke: Congress, We are Voter, hear us roar: Abolish the CIA.)
How about this…
“Corporation-Controlled”–the existing system, in which national or multinational corporations determine what treatments can or cannot be afforded to individual patients.
“Non-Corporate Option”–where corporations are not involved in deciding what treatments are available to patients.
I like that. It is better than any of mine.